CJ was a bad pick given the circumstances. no matter if he goes to the HOF. How many games have the Lions won with CJ on the squad? It looks like they'll go winless with him playing very well. WR only have so much impact. That's why you don't do what the Lions did last year. I said it then and I say it now. Look at what has happened since. Hows this all working out?

Are you saying the Lions are about to go win less because they drafted Calvin Johnson?

Indirectly.

That wasn't exactly what I was thinking, but I suppose in a way I can live with that interpretation of what I said. CJ looks to be all world. But despite that fact, the Lions are poised to be 0-16. The team is worse now than when he got here. It has nothing to do with CJ himself, it has to do with the team as a unit and what has happened since the pick. The entire Roy ordeal was predicted by many of you here before they drafted CJ. When Roy was #1, you had a team with a good #1 WR, a bad OL, no QB and a rotten defense. Now you have a team with a good #1 WR, a bad OL that is now older, no QB and a rotten defense filled with Marinelli players instead of Mariucci guys. It looks like the Lions will have averaged 3 wins per year with CJ, kind of like they had before they picked him.

During that year's draft run up I said on here that if the Lions wanted to make a big splash on offense, they should take the risk on AP. I didn't know he would be good, or that he wouldn't get hurt. A good RB is worth more wins to a bad team than a pro bowl WR. I don't remember for sure now, but I wanted them to trade back and take Willis, or stay put and take Thomas.

There are a lot of reasons the Lions are so bad. CJ isn't the cause, but failing to improve the core of the team so you can load your WR crew is bad strategy. Let me ask you all this... If there is another CJ in this draft, this year. Say Crabtree for example, do you want to take him at #1? If you don't, why not? This is the same situation as 2007.

_________________OK. Schwartz is fired, the fans are happy, now what?

December 20th, 2008, 11:00 pm

wjb21ndtown

jrd66 wrote:

dh86 wrote:

Blueskies wrote:

Quote:

CJ was a bad pick given the circumstances. no matter if he goes to the HOF. How many games have the Lions won with CJ on the squad? It looks like they'll go winless with him playing very well. WR only have so much impact. That's why you don't do what the Lions did last year. I said it then and I say it now. Look at what has happened since. Hows this all working out?

Are you saying the Lions are about to go win less because they drafted Calvin Johnson?

Indirectly.

That wasn't exactly what I was thinking, but I suppose in a way I can live with that interpretation of what I said. CJ looks to be all world. But despite that fact, the Lions are poised to be 0-16. The team is worse now than when he got here. It has nothing to do with CJ himself, it has to do with the team as a unit and what has happened since the pick. The entire Roy ordeal was predicted by many of you here before they drafted CJ. When Roy was #1, you had a team with a good #1 WR, a bad OL, no QB and a rotten defense. Now you have a team with a good #1 WR, a bad OL that is now older, no QB and a rotten defense filled with Marinelli players instead of Mariucci guys. It looks like the Lions will have averaged 3 wins per year with CJ, kind of like they had before they picked him.

During that year's draft run up I said on here that if the Lions wanted to make a big splash on offense, they should take the risk on AP. I didn't know he would be good, or that he wouldn't get hurt. A good RB is worth more wins to a bad team than a pro bowl WR. I don't remember for sure now, but I wanted them to trade back and take Willis, or stay put and take Thomas.

There are a lot of reasons the Lions are so bad. CJ isn't the cause, but failing to improve the core of the team so you can load your WR crew is bad strategy. Let me ask you all this... If there is another CJ in this draft, this year. Say Crabtree for example, do you want to take him at #1? If you don't, why not? This is the same situation as 2007.

Crabtree is amazing, but I wouldn't take him #1 overall, or even in the top 5-10. I personally wanted to trade back and take Patrick Willis. That said, if we couldn't move I wanted CJ if we stayed put. I wasn't high on Joe Thomas (I was wrong, I can admit that), and I thought that AP was going to get hurt. IMO CJ was the safe pick and a great talent, BUT to me the problems with Roy were inevitible. I wanted to trade Roy last year either during or before the draft, and upgrade our OL. I would have stayed put at 15 and taken Brandon Albert and kept him as an OG, and went after OT later in the draft, perhaps still drafting Cherilus.

I liked Roy when we first drafted him, but for the last two years I've soured heavily on him, his personality, and his play. He didn't seem to care anymore about losing games, he laughed at drops, and he didn't seem to work hard. If it were up to me we would have traded Roy last year and not had to deal with that mess. We would have, IMO, upgraded our WR corps by swapping Roy for CJ AND upgraded our OL by trading Roy for a late first round pick.

IMO we're better off now because we have a hard-working, high-character WR that is more physically gifted and, IMO either knows the game better or cares more than Roy did, and we're still able to upgrade the OL with Roy's departure. IMO it's almost a blessing that we couldn't trade Roy last year as I think there is better OL value in THIS years draft. I think we're better suited to make a real run at improving our OL this year, and having a productive offense.

We could go D and improve the team that way as well. It wouldn't be my preferred method, but anything is an improvement at this point.

Looking back I'm still happy about the CJ pick. If I had it to do all over again I like to think I would take Joe Thomas, but I really think we're better off with the path we ended up with. Swapping Joe Thomas for Jeff Backus would make us a much better team, no doubt. That said, if that happened we would still have Roy on our team, and IMO he would have been a perpetual problem child that we would have lost for no compensation in the end.

That said, IMO we HAVE to SERIOUSLY upgrade the OL THIS YEAR. IMO it is the final piece of the puzzle holding our offense back. Sure we could use a TE, but it isn't necessary. A #2 WR would be nice, but I think we're fine there. Furrey is paid like a #2 WR and has great hands. He is a good possession WR and MacDonald is a good speedy WR. We could rotate those two guys at #2/3 WR, confuse opposing defenses, and have a good WR corps. A 4th project WR that can KR/PR would be a HUGE upgrade, but again, not necessary for a productive offense. If we get a new LT, OC and RG this team will have a good offense. I'd like to see at least two of those picks filled on DAY ONE this year. I realize that we need to fix our defense as well, but even if we spend ALL of our picks on D we won't have a good defense.

This team needs an idenity, and it should be that of a good offensive team that you want to keep on the sidelines. Why? for no other reason than we're much closer to that than anything else.

I know we'll still suck on D but we'll be SET on one side of the ball, and that WILL make us competitive football team. Not sucking as bad on both sides of the ball will NOT make us competitive, and we still won't have an identity.

December 20th, 2008, 11:58 pm

hamma77

Heisman Winner

Joined: December 8th, 2008, 3:16 pmPosts: 785

How did Curry do today in the bowl game? I missed the game.

December 21st, 2008, 12:17 am

jrd66

Mr. Irrelevant

Joined: February 10th, 2005, 6:52 pmPosts: 958Location: Linden, MI

wjb21ndtown wrote:

jrd66 wrote:

dh86 wrote:

Blueskies wrote:

Quote:

CJ was a bad pick given the circumstances. no matter if he goes to the HOF. How many games have the Lions won with CJ on the squad? It looks like they'll go winless with him playing very well. WR only have so much impact. That's why you don't do what the Lions did last year. I said it then and I say it now. Look at what has happened since. Hows this all working out?

Are you saying the Lions are about to go win less because they drafted Calvin Johnson?

Indirectly.

That wasn't exactly what I was thinking, but I suppose in a way I can live with that interpretation of what I said. CJ looks to be all world. But despite that fact, the Lions are poised to be 0-16. The team is worse now than when he got here. It has nothing to do with CJ himself, it has to do with the team as a unit and what has happened since the pick. The entire Roy ordeal was predicted by many of you here before they drafted CJ. When Roy was #1, you had a team with a good #1 WR, a bad OL, no QB and a rotten defense. Now you have a team with a good #1 WR, a bad OL that is now older, no QB and a rotten defense filled with Marinelli players instead of Mariucci guys. It looks like the Lions will have averaged 3 wins per year with CJ, kind of like they had before they picked him.

During that year's draft run up I said on here that if the Lions wanted to make a big splash on offense, they should take the risk on AP. I didn't know he would be good, or that he wouldn't get hurt. A good RB is worth more wins to a bad team than a pro bowl WR. I don't remember for sure now, but I wanted them to trade back and take Willis, or stay put and take Thomas.

There are a lot of reasons the Lions are so bad. CJ isn't the cause, but failing to improve the core of the team so you can load your WR crew is bad strategy. Let me ask you all this... If there is another CJ in this draft, this year. Say Crabtree for example, do you want to take him at #1? If you don't, why not? This is the same situation as 2007.

Crabtree is amazing, but I wouldn't take him #1 overall, or even in the top 5-10. I personally wanted to trade back and take Patrick Willis. That said, if we couldn't move I wanted CJ if we stayed put. I wasn't high on Joe Thomas (I was wrong, I can admit that), and I thought that AP was going to get hurt. IMO CJ was the safe pick and a great talent, BUT to me the problems with Roy were inevitible. I wanted to trade Roy last year either during or before the draft, and upgrade our OL. I would have stayed put at 15 and taken Brandon Albert and kept him as an OG, and went after OT later in the draft, perhaps still drafting Cherilus.

I liked Roy when we first drafted him, but for the last two years I've soured heavily on him, his personality, and his play. He didn't seem to care anymore about losing games, he laughed at drops, and he didn't seem to work hard. If it were up to me we would have traded Roy last year and not had to deal with that mess. We would have, IMO, upgraded our WR corps by swapping Roy for CJ AND upgraded our OL by trading Roy for a late first round pick.

IMO we're better off now because we have a hard-working, high-character WR that is more physically gifted and, IMO either knows the game better or cares more than Roy did, and we're still able to upgrade the OL with Roy's departure. IMO it's almost a blessing that we couldn't trade Roy last year as I think there is better OL value in THIS years draft. I think we're better suited to make a real run at improving our OL this year, and having a productive offense.

We could go D and improve the team that way as well. It wouldn't be my preferred method, but anything is an improvement at this point.

Looking back I'm still happy about the CJ pick. If I had it to do all over again I like to think I would take Joe Thomas, but I really think we're better off with the path we ended up with. Swapping Joe Thomas for Jeff Backus would make us a much better team, no doubt. That said, if that happened we would still have Roy on our team, and IMO he would have been a perpetual problem child that we would have lost for no compensation in the end.

That said, IMO we HAVE to SERIOUSLY upgrade the OL THIS YEAR. IMO it is the final piece of the puzzle holding our offense back. Sure we could use a TE, but it isn't necessary. A #2 WR would be nice, but I think we're fine there. Furrey is paid like a #2 WR and has great hands. He is a good possession WR and MacDonald is a good speedy WR. We could rotate those two guys at #2/3 WR, confuse opposing defenses, and have a good WR corps. A 4th project WR that can KR/PR would be a HUGE upgrade, but again, not necessary for a productive offense. If we get a new LT, OC and RG this team will have a good offense. I'd like to see at least two of those picks filled on DAY ONE this year. I realize that we need to fix our defense as well, but even if we spend ALL of our picks on D we won't have a good defense.

This team needs an idenity, and it should be that of a good offensive team that you want to keep on the sidelines. Why? for no other reason than we're much closer to that than anything else.

I know we'll still suck on D but we'll be SET on one side of the ball, and that WILL make us competitive football team. Not sucking as bad on both sides of the ball will NOT make us competitive, and we still won't have an identity.

I can agree with your plan in the sense to fix the OL. I do wonder how to fix 3 OL positions in one swipe, however. The true fantasy situation might be to draft someone like Andre Smith, move Backus inside and let him fight it out with Ramirez for the RG spot and keep Raiola in place. Early this year Ramirez seemed to be improving, perhaps that might continue. I'm not against drafting more OL for sure. I always want OG and they never pick them.

You say elsewhere that Raiola is thought of as good around the league. I think there are similar feelings about Backus as well, at least to the extent that they thingk he can play, not like we talk about him here. Perhaps he can make the switch. If not, he can be released I guess. I don't know who the FA OGs will be this year, but that can be an option as well.

_________________OK. Schwartz is fired, the fans are happy, now what?

December 21st, 2008, 10:27 am

wjb21ndtown

jrd66 wrote:

I can agree with your plan in the sense to fix the OL. I do wonder how to fix 3 OL positions in one swipe, however. The true fantasy situation might be to draft someone like Andre Smith, move Backus inside and let him fight it out with Ramirez for the RG spot and keep Raiola in place. Early this year Ramirez seemed to be improving, perhaps that might continue. I'm not against drafting more OL for sure. I always want OG and they never pick them.

You say elsewhere that Raiola is thought of as good around the league. I think there are similar feelings about Backus as well, at least to the extent that they thingk he can play, not like we talk about him here. Perhaps he can make the switch. If not, he can be released I guess. I don't know who the FA OGs will be this year, but that can be an option as well.

I agree 100%. I think Backus could be moved, but not inside. I think we MIGHT be able to trade him for a mid-round pick to a team that needs an LT, but can't afford to take one early due to more pressing needs.

That said, I would like to offer a mid-round pick for Dan Buenning from TB. He was a prior 3rd round pick that I wanted us to take, he has started a number of games for TB, but was benched when they took an OG in the mid-first round (I think Davin Joseph, but I could be wrong).

You could argue that if they had to upgrade Buenning, then why would we want him, but much like my analysis on Raiola, I think Dan is better than ANY OG we could get with our mid-round pick. TB would just have to decide if someone in the mid-rounds either had more upside, or better fit their needs. I think that they would get rid of him, however, because I believe he will be a FA after next year. They could draft a 3rd-4th round OG and sign him for the next three years at a rate much cheaper than Dan B. would cost. His value as depth might be more worth it to them, however, and they might not be willing to part with him. That said, I would hope we could find a 2nd tier OG in FA, or in trade from someone.

So, to recap, I think we need to go OT in the first, and OC in either our 2nd first or our 2nd round pick. I could be wrong, and Dom might be more valuable than I give him credit for, but I think our OL would be better if we swapped Dom for Alex Mack. Mack is already 20lbs. heavier and just as athletic from what I've seen. Sure he'll need some time to be able to read the blitz well, but every rookie has to adjust mentally. I think he'll be able to do it. Not to mention, IMO Dom burned his bridge here and needs to go.

If the FO doesn't want to get rid of Dom (who I think could be good if we get another good OG to play next to him, I wouldn't be opposed for keeping him for one more season and getting a LT and OG this offseason. The LT in the first round.

This team needs an idenity, and it should be that of a good offensive team that you want to keep on the sidelines.

And that is exactly where they will be located for about 45 of the 60 minutes each game. Because Our defense can't get off the field to save their lives. At least until they give up the TD.

December 21st, 2008, 2:37 pm

wjb21ndtown

BillySims wrote:

wjb21ndtown wrote:

This team needs an idenity, and it should be that of a good offensive team that you want to keep on the sidelines.

And that is exactly where they will be located for about 45 of the 60 minutes each game. Because Our defense can't get off the field to save their lives. At least until they give up the TD.

And that's fine, and then our high-powered offense gets on the field. At least it's something to look forward to. It's better than sucking at BOTH offense AND defense next year, which is what we'll do if we spend our first three picks on D.

If we spend our first three picks on D, we're STILL going to have no identity, we'll still do NOTHING well, and we won't be competitive in any way. We can always look forward to the FOLLOWING offseason, but I would rather fix SOMETHING this year, and have a competitive team thereafter.

December 21st, 2008, 2:40 pm

hamma77

Heisman Winner

Joined: December 8th, 2008, 3:16 pmPosts: 785

if you get 2 defensive players in the first round and they will both have impacts right away, it's almost 100% for sure that they'll be better than what we have.

December 21st, 2008, 2:46 pm

wjb21ndtown

hamma77 wrote:

if you get 2 defensive players in the first round and they will both have impacts right away, it's almost 100% for sure that they'll be better than what we have.

Sure, our defense will go from being ranked 32nd to 26th - 28th, because we'll STILL have three holes... BRILLIANT! We'll still SUCK with a 26th ranked defense and a 28th ranked offense.

If we FIX the offense our defense will get better because they'll be on the field less AND we will be doing something well. Moving the ball and scoring.

December 21st, 2008, 2:57 pm

hamma77

Heisman Winner

Joined: December 8th, 2008, 3:16 pmPosts: 785

If I recall, We have moved the ball down the field pretty much at will the past 3 weeks, how many wins do we have?

if you get 2 defensive players in the first round and they will both have impacts right away, it's almost 100% for sure that they'll be better than what we have.

Sure, our defense will go from being ranked 32nd to 26th - 28th, because we'll STILL have three holes... BRILLIANT! We'll still SUCK with a 26th ranked defense and a 28th ranked offense.

If we FIX the offense our defense will get better because they'll be on the field less AND we will be doing something well. Moving the ball and scoring.

So, what your saying is our defense is already worn out in the 1st quarter of every game. We seem to start out down 21 points every game. How can they be on the field any less than at the beginning of the game?
AND by improving the defense, the offense gets the ball back in better field position, the defense CAN actually intercept some passes and return them for TD's, and cause fumbles.

But, we can't fix the defense this year, so why even try right?

December 21st, 2008, 3:36 pm

wjb21ndtown

BillySims wrote:

wjb21ndtown wrote:

hamma77 wrote:

if you get 2 defensive players in the first round and they will both have impacts right away, it's almost 100% for sure that they'll be better than what we have.

Sure, our defense will go from being ranked 32nd to 26th - 28th, because we'll STILL have three holes... BRILLIANT! We'll still SUCK with a 26th ranked defense and a 28th ranked offense.

If we FIX the offense our defense will get better because they'll be on the field less AND we will be doing something well. Moving the ball and scoring.

So, what your saying is our defense is already worn out in the 1st quarter of every game. We seem to start out down 21 points every game. How can they be on the field any less than at the beginning of the game?AND by improving the defense, the offense gets the ball back in better field position, the defense CAN actually intercept some passes and return them for TD's, and cause fumbles.

But, we can't fix the defense this year, so why even try right?

You're being ignorant, short-sighted, and a complete azzhole about all of this, and I can say that with confidence with your "sheeple" comment stating that you want to vommit on the people that disagree with you.

No one is saying that we shouldn't upgrade our D this year, and no one is saying that we shouldn't try to improve our D. Your assertion of that is a despirate man trying to put words in people's mouths because you're losing ground, losing support, and you're refusing to listen to the over-whelming amount of evidence contrary to your position.

I want to spend, AT MOST, THREE picks on the offensive side of the ball. If we can sign a FA OG, or trade for an OG for a midround pick, than that number goes down to 2 first day picks. The REST of our picks, the other 5 or 6 that we have, can ALL be used on defense.

if you get 2 defensive players in the first round and they will both have impacts right away, it's almost 100% for sure that they'll be better than what we have.

Sure, our defense will go from being ranked 32nd to 26th - 28th, because we'll STILL have three holes... BRILLIANT! We'll still SUCK with a 26th ranked defense and a 28th ranked offense.

If we FIX the offense our defense will get better because they'll be on the field less AND we will be doing something well. Moving the ball and scoring.

So, what your saying is our defense is already worn out in the 1st quarter of every game. We seem to start out down 21 points every game. How can they be on the field any less than at the beginning of the game?AND by improving the defense, the offense gets the ball back in better field position, the defense CAN actually intercept some passes and return them for TD's, and cause fumbles.

But, we can't fix the defense this year, so why even try right?

You're being ignorant, short-sighted, and a complete azzhole about all of this, and I can say that with confidence with your "sheeple" comment stating that you want to vommit on the people that disagree with you.

No one is saying that we shouldn't upgrade our D this year, and no one is saying that we shouldn't try to improve our D. Your assertion of that is a despirate man trying to put words in people's mouths because you're losing ground, losing support, and you're refusing to listen to the over-whelming amount of evidence contrary to your position.

I want to spend, AT MOST, THREE picks on the offensive side of the ball. If we can sign a FA OG, or trade for an OG for a midround pick, than that number goes down to 2 first day picks. The REST of our picks, the other 5 or 6 that we have, can ALL be used on defense.

And once again we will have an offense on the sideline while the defense gets their @$$es handed to them. You are the making the assertion that fixing the OL that this team will miraculously become wonderful. When they won't be able to do a damn thing on the sideline. Just look at this damn Saints game !!!!!

If we had a defense, we might be able to get the damn offense on the field. YOU ARE THE ONE BEING SHORT SIGHTED !!! I'm not loosing any ground. I have the evidence right before you and it's on tape!!!! You are just being ignorant to the facts even though they are smacking you in the face every time you watch this team.

What is your overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary of what I am saying? The other sheeple that agree with you is evidence? I call it lemming syndrome. I'm seeing plenty of evidence to the contrary of what your saying, and hopefully those that are put in charge of running this team will have the wisdom to to fix the real problems on the Lions.

December 21st, 2008, 4:21 pm

wjb21ndtown

BillySims wrote:

And once again we will have an offense on the sideline while the defense gets their @$$es handed to them. You are the making the assertion that fixing the OL that this team will miraculously become wonderful. When they won't be able to do a damn thing on the sideline. Just look at this damn Saints game !!!!!

If we had a defense, we might be able to get the damn offense on the field. YOU ARE THE ONE BEING SHORT SIGHTED !!! I'm not loosing any ground. I have the evidence right before you and it's on tape!!!! You are just being ignorant to the facts even though they are smacking you in the face every time you watch this team.

What is your overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary of what I am saying? The other sheeple that agree with you is evidence? I call it lemming syndrome. I'm seeing plenty of evidence to the contrary of what your saying, and hopefully those that are put in charge of running this team will have the wisdom to to fix the real problems on the Lions.

I NEVER make the claim that fixing the offense will "miraculously" make the team "wonderful." I say that the team will be COMPETITIVE, and it would be. If we had a good offense this game would be 21 or 28 to 28 or 35. We WOULD NOT have allowed 42 points for virtue of time of possession alone, and our D WOULD have played better if they were more rested.

The offense is going to get their opportunitties regardless, whether it si from them scoring or our defense stopping them, the offense is going to get on the field. The ONLY question is what the score is when the offense goes out there.

The OVERWHELMING evidence is the FACT that virtually EVERY scouting site and virtually EVERY mock draft does NOT have ANY defensive player going in the top 4-5 picks. There is OVERWHELMING evidence that there is NOT an impact DE or DT this year, and there OVERWHELMING evdience that you absolutely CANNOT pay a SSLB, MLB, or SS $50 MILLION dollars as a rookie. I'm not talking about other people on here agreeing with me, I'm talking about EXPERTS evaluating TALENT in the draft.

I have said time and time again that I would draft Mario Williams, Julius Peppers or Javon Kersk #1 overall this year. I would even draft Vincent Wilfork #1 over all this year. HOWEVER, there aren't ANY DL players of that caliber in this draft. You have to deal with the hand you're dealt, and ours is the simple fact that all of the top four talents (if not more) in this draft our on the offensive side of the ball.

And once again we will have an offense on the sideline while the defense gets their @$$es handed to them. You are the making the assertion that fixing the OL that this team will miraculously become wonderful. When they won't be able to do a damn thing on the sideline. Just look at this damn Saints game !!!!!

If we had a defense, we might be able to get the damn offense on the field. YOU ARE THE ONE BEING SHORT SIGHTED !!! I'm not loosing any ground. I have the evidence right before you and it's on tape!!!! You are just being ignorant to the facts even though they are smacking you in the face every time you watch this team.

What is your overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary of what I am saying? The other sheeple that agree with you is evidence? I call it lemming syndrome. I'm seeing plenty of evidence to the contrary of what your saying, and hopefully those that are put in charge of running this team will have the wisdom to to fix the real problems on the Lions.

I NEVER make the claim that fixing the offense will "miraculously" make the team "wonderful." I say that the team will be COMPETITIVE, and it would be. If we had a good offense this game would be 21 or 28 to 28 or 35. We WOULD NOT have allowed 42 points for virtue of time of possession alone, and our D WOULD have played better if they were more rested.

The offense is going to get their opportunitties regardless, whether it si from them scoring or our defense stopping them, the offense is going to get on the field. The ONLY question is what the score is when the offense goes out there.

The OVERWHELMING evidence is the FACT that virtually EVERY scouting site and virtually EVERY mock draft does NOT have ANY defensive player going in the top 4-5 picks. There is OVERWHELMING evidence that there is NOT an impact DE or DT this year, and there OVERWHELMING evdience that you absolutely CANNOT pay a SSLB, MLB, or SS $50 MILLION dollars as a rookie. I'm not talking about other people on here agreeing with me, I'm talking about EXPERTS evaluating TALENT in the draft.

I have said time and time again that I would draft Mario Williams, Julius Peppers or Javon Kersk #1 overall this year. I would even draft Vincent Wilfork #1 over all this year. HOWEVER, there aren't ANY DL players of that caliber in this draft. You have to deal with the hand you're dealt, and ours is the simple fact that all of the top four talents (if not more) in this draft our on the offensive side of the ball.

SCOUTING AND DRAFT SITES are your overwhelming evidence? They are wrong more often then they are right. Just compare their mock drafts to every real draft. Those site might have a 15% accuracy and that's being generous!